Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2008, 12:31 PM
 
240 posts, read 948,397 times
Reputation: 85

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mczabe View Post
Then I guess I wish we would spend more time addressing the larger parts before having 22 pages of discussion on teachers being overpaid.

This appears to be one topic that continually sparks a lot of attention in this forum and a whole lot of ignorance. Not worth the fight - been there done that. Let them believe they are right...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2008, 12:46 PM
 
Location: High Bridge
2,736 posts, read 9,676,738 times
Reputation: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bored2Day View Post
This appears to be one topic that continually sparks a lot of attention in this forum and a whole lot of ignorance. Not worth the fight - been there done that. Let them believe they are right...
I think the reason it comes up often is it isn't a large portion of the state pie (read: HUGE taxes), but a HUGE portion of the local municipal budget. School budgets are always the big ticket items on municipal budgets, especially in the suburbs, making it a local bone of contention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 12:51 PM
 
240 posts, read 948,397 times
Reputation: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuCullin View Post
I think the reason it comes up often is it isn't a large portion of the state pie (read: HUGE taxes), but a HUGE portion of the local municipal budget. School budgets are always the big ticket items on municipal budgets, especially in the suburbs, making it a local bone of contention.

Uh Huh... You're right...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 02:41 PM
 
Location: NJ
12,283 posts, read 35,715,087 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by timneh5 View Post
You have a lot of nerve complaining about not getting a bonus and having to contribute towards your pension. Do you contribute to your health benefits? What? You have to work during the summer to make ends meet? Welcome to the real world; we all work year-round and contribute to health care and pension benefits. What's the average class size? 15? How much time is needed to grade 15 [or less] papers at home?

There are a lot of hard-working people that are not teachers and don't receive a bonus, contribute towards health care and pension benefits, don't get paid overtime, and work a full year; some working more than one job to put food of the table, gas in their vehicles, and to pay the very tax that pays your salary.

Not having children doesn't relieve me from the huge school tax burden to send every one else's kids to school and I have every right to complain about the money that's being sucked out of my wallet to make your life easier. Don't tell me, it's for the kids. If "it" was for the kids, then you would have money for school supplies instead of putting the money towards your salary.

I don't mind paying something for the school tax, but I feel the tax should be based on how many kids you send to school. Do that and let's see how happy the parents would be with the school budget. NJ's new slogan: "Pay to Learn."
really. could've fooled me. tell me, when are you becoming a teacher?

welcome to the boards, btw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Down Jersey
56 posts, read 200,437 times
Reputation: 30
I'm sorry... but there is no reason that a new teacher should have a starting salary of $50K, especially with the benefits they receive. Like a lot of people (Auto workers also come to mind), many teachers seem to not consider their benefits as part of their overall salary - which they most certainly are. The fact remains that NJ teachers are some of the best compensated overall in the whole country. I don't really care how many years one has gone to school for because that doesn't make a lick of difference. There aren't all that many "commodity" jobs which start their workers off at that level, especially with those kind of benefits... and that's without even mentioning that such other jobs are 12-month positions... not 9-10 month ones. So I too have zero sympathy for any teacher complaining that they have to get a job in the summer to make ends meet... to echo the sentiments of a few others on here - Welcome to the real world! Everyone else has to work 12 months a year and there's no reason why teachers shouldn't have to as well... You're an adult, not a student - only students get the summer off, so get over it. Frankly, I think new teachers should be started at around $35K a year, especially with full benefits. Either that, or to compensate for a higher starting salary those new teachers should not receive full benefits until they've reached tenure.

However, my biggest problem with NJ's public school system concerns the tax structure which funds it. How backwards is it that those households which actually use the services provided by their local school district actually end up paying less in overall taxes than those without children? While property taxes are blind to whether there are children in the house or not, the truth is that parents end up paying less due to all of the available tax credits to parents for their children... heck, just look at these "stimulus" rebates... parents are receiving an extra $300 per child in their rebate.

Education isn't free... I find it ridiculous that not only are parents not proportionately responsible for the funding of their own children's education... but that they generally end up paying less in their overall taxes.

Just as an example... in my own area, the school tax burden is about $2800 per household... yet only 1/3 of the households have children which use the services provided by the school district. Hate me if you wish, but I feel that I shouldn't be responsible for funding the education of someone else's child. While I do believe that everyone should contribute to the "greater good" to a certain extent, I don't feel I should be equally burdened by a service which I'll never use... especially when those who do use such services pay no more than I do. I feel that those households without children should only be levied half of the average at most... which means in my area, households without children should only be paying on average about $1400 a year to the local school district and that the difference be made up by those households who actually send children to that district - proportionate to how many children they send to the district.

There's no reason why parents shouldn't have to carry the financial burden of their children's education... If nothing else, such a system may even result in more parents becoming more involved in their children's schooling for the simple fact that people tend to care more about things they actually have to pay for... and that would only be a good thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 03:38 PM
 
1,787 posts, read 5,752,250 times
Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
really. could've fooled me. tell me, when are you becoming a teacher?

welcome to the boards, btw.
In some level or another, we're all teachers in life. I'm not sure I understand why you asked me that question. . .do I need to be a teacher to get over my high school tax bill?

Thank you for the welcome!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 03:46 PM
 
9,124 posts, read 36,406,597 times
Reputation: 3631
Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post

Just as an example... in my own area, the school tax burden is about $2800 per household... yet only 1/3 of the households have children which use the services provided by the school district. Hate me if you wish, but I feel that I shouldn't be responsible for funding the education of someone else's child. While I do believe that everyone should contribute to the "greater good" to a certain extent, I don't feel I should be equally burdened by a service which I'll never use... especially when those who do use such services pay no more than I do. I feel that those households without children should only be levied half of the average at most... which means in my area, households without children should only be paying on average about $1400 a year to the local school district and that the difference be made up by those households who actually send children to that district - proportionate to how many children they send to the district.
And people who are under 55 shouldn't have to pay for the new senior center that the town built, and those who have health insurance shouldn't pay for the free clinic at city hall, and those who don't have a fire at their house shouldn't have to pay for the fire department, and so on and so on. Check with your parents and see if they fully paid for your education, or if their childless neighbors contributed as well. Unfortunately, we can't pick and choose what parts of municipal services we each pay for based on usage- deal with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 03:50 PM
 
173 posts, read 819,187 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post
There's no reason why parents shouldn't have to carry the financial burden of their children's education... If nothing else, such a system may even result in more parents becoming more involved in their children's schooling for the simple fact that people tend to care more about things they actually have to pay for... and that would only be a good thing.
This idea makes some theoretical sense but is completely impractical. In a broad sense, government takes in tax money and provides services for citizens. The system would be too unwieldy if the government had to determine which citizen is using how much for what. I know you have the specific example of education but it would not be fair to limit your system for education. For example, why should people who don't drive have to pay for upkeep of certain roads? Why should the young have to fund senior citizen services? Why do the non-swimmers have to fund lifeguards? Why does any law-abider have to pay for police? To get into the line item of each service is just too much of a nightmare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 03:53 PM
 
1,787 posts, read 5,752,250 times
Reputation: 1301
Default amgoff for president

Quote:
Originally Posted by amgoff View Post
I'm sorry... but there is no reason that a new teacher should have a starting salary of $50K, especially with the benefits they receive. Like a lot of people (Auto workers also come to mind), many teachers seem to not consider their benefits as part of their overall salary - which they most certainly are. The fact remains that NJ teachers are some of the best compensated overall in the whole country. I don't really care how many years one has gone to school for because that doesn't make a lick of difference. There aren't all that many "commodity" jobs which start their workers off at that level, especially with those kind of benefits... and that's without even mentioning that such other jobs are 12-month positions... not 9-10 month ones. So I too have zero sympathy for any teacher complaining that they have to get a job in the summer to make ends meet... to echo the sentiments of a few others on here - Welcome to the real world! Everyone else has to work 12 months a year and there's no reason why teachers shouldn't have to as well... You're an adult, not a student - only students get the summer off, so get over it. Frankly, I think new teachers should be started at around $35K a year, especially with full benefits. Either that, or to compensate for a higher starting salary those new teachers should not receive full benefits until they've reached tenure.

However, my biggest problem with NJ's public school system concerns the tax structure which funds it. How backwards is it that those households which actually use the services provided by their local school district actually end up paying less in overall taxes than those without children? While property taxes are blind to whether there are children in the house or not, the truth is that parents end up paying less due to all of the available tax credits to parents for their children... heck, just look at these "stimulus" rebates... parents are receiving an extra $300 per child in their rebate.

Education isn't free... I find it ridiculous that not only are parents not proportionately responsible for the funding of their own children's education... but that they generally end up paying less in their overall taxes.

Just as an example... in my own area, the school tax burden is about $2800 per household... yet only 1/3 of the households have children which use the services provided by the school district. Hate me if you wish, but I feel that I shouldn't be responsible for funding the education of someone else's child. While I do believe that everyone should contribute to the "greater good" to a certain extent, I don't feel I should be equally burdened by a service which I'll never use... especially when those who do use such services pay no more than I do. I feel that those households without children should only be levied half of the average at most... which means in my area, households without children should only be paying on average about $1400 a year to the local school district and that the difference be made up by those households who actually send children to that district - proportionate to how many children they send to the district.

There's no reason why parents shouldn't have to carry the financial burden of their children's education... If nothing else, such a system may even result in more parents becoming more involved in their children's schooling for the simple fact that people tend to care more about things they actually have to pay for... and that would only be a good thing.
My school tax is $4,395.00 - just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside!! amgoff, I couldn't agree with you more.

amgoff for president!!

Pay to Learn~
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2008, 04:04 PM
 
Location: Down Jersey
56 posts, read 200,437 times
Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobKovacs View Post
And people who are under 55 shouldn't have to pay for the new senior center that the town built, and those who have health insurance shouldn't pay for the free clinic at city hall, and those who don't have a fire at their house shouldn't have to pay for the fire department, and so on and so on. Check with your parents and see if they fully paid for your education, or if their childless neighbors contributed as well. Unfortunately, we can't pick and choose what parts of municipal services we each pay for based on usage- deal with it.
And unfortunately, that generalized point of view is part of the problem... so is the notion of staying par for the course simply because it's the way things have always been done.

Change isn't a bad word... and it's direly needed in a state such as ours.

How is it even possible to compare the funding of a school district to the funding of a fire department? It's not and you know it... Some municipal services such as fire and police are ones that there will always be the possibility of need. Homeowners without children and who never plan on having children will never need the services provided by the local school district - plain and simple.

Not once did I suggest that homeowners without children should not have to contribute to their local school tax, but only that those households which use the service should be responsible for shouldering their equal share... especially when their overall tax burden is generally less than those without children. I don't care how one would want to spin it, but there's no reason why those households who will never use such a service should ever be disproportionately responsible.

Again... such generalized view points get us nowhere. I never thought I'd see someone defending the status quo in NJ... especially with regard to property taxes. If there's any place that need sweeping reforms - it's NJ.

May I assume that you're a parent? If so, I can completely understand why you would be opposed to such an idea... but in this day and age, all I can say is... tough.

I stand by my argument... there's no reason why parents shouldn't be proportionately responsible for the funding of their own children's education... whether it be through a fairer property tax structure or by some other means. Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to more of a tuition based system either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top